Just for starters, Aristotle lacked equipment such as the Nikon P100 camera which can bring ships back into view after they disappeared over the horizon. In the "olden days", men thought those ships were disappearing over the earth's curve. Today, with simple photographic equipment, we can "bring the ship back" by zooming in. It's a question of optics, perspective, and angular resolution -- not earth curvature.

Yes, this has quickly turned into a gish gallop. Enthusiasm is not to be denied, but I am looking for something a little more disciplined than intellectual whack-a-mole, and I'm sure we all would appreciate such clarity.

The original premise involved shadows - let us find consensus there first.

Then ethos must be established - what are the rules of who is to be believed? Anticipating no consensus, I propose we pursue principles we can actually confirm ourselves through observation or experimentation, like shadow size, observing the eclipse, etc. Aristotle seems to have provoked quite a reaction - my reference to him is to someone who was doing everything he could with what he had, an example starting point more than a sensei.

Then we can address the black sun proposition. That will require robust evidence.

God Speed and Holy Sunday to all.

Why not address the OP instead of changing the subject?  Surest sign of intellectual dishonesty is when people don't and/or can't refute some point or argument but then respond by changing the subject.  None of us have an idea what's in that picture, nor do you.

Fact is that in a globe model we'd see the shadow of earth beneath the clouds as the sun sets and we'd see light coming in through windows rising above the actual level of the window itself.

Not trying to hurt your feelings but you need to study a bit more.

Fact is that in a globe model we'd see the shadow of earth beneath the clouds as the sun sets and we'd see light coming in through windows rising above the actual level of the window itself.